Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:16, 17 October 2008

China B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Reigns

Dates of reign do not match those of the Qing Dynasty article. olivier 11:46, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I changed the end-of-reign year 1796 => 1795. Minutes after I changed. User:Wik changed both dates to 1735 and 1796. My question to Wik: Why did you change the dates of reign of Qianlong Emperor of China? These dates do not match those of the table of Qing Dynasty. According to my source (The Rise of Modern China by Immanuel C.Y. Hsu), the dates of his reign are 1736 to 1795. olivier 23:29, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Does your source have exact dates? According to my source the reign is 18 Oct 1735 - 9 Feb 1796 (). --Wik 23:30, Sep 25, 2003 (UTC)

Your source is obviously more detailed than mine. Let us leave 1735 - 1796, unless someone disagrees. olivier 00:05, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The dates from Wik's source has been verified to be consistent with the Chinese historical text. kt2 00:54, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yongzheng reign

The discussion on the Kangxi emperor choosing the Yongzheng emperor in order to seat the Qianlong emperor is not really historically verifiable. In fact, it is widely believed Yongzheng seized power through court intrigues.

Qianlong emperor did reign emperor from 1735 to1796.

Can this article actually be labelled as "copyright violation"???

Because the first version resembles the content on the following webpage: http://www.hceis.com/ChinaBasic/History/Qing%20dynasty%20history.htm

The given name of the Qianlong emperor

Hi all,

Qianlong's given name in Manchu orthography was Hungli, and his temple name was G'aodzung. His short posthumous name was Yongkiyangga Hūwangdi.

My source is this site, as well as Gertraude Roth-Li: http://myweb.hinet.net/home10/manjusibe/g.htm

This page uses "v" in "hvwangdi", but "ū" is the standard way to transcribe this vowel.

Conventions

I don't want to tell the Chinese how to handle the names of their Emperors, but could we have some agreement on what name to use for each one mentioned in the article? One understands that Qianlong is also Hongli, and also Prince Bao; but then we get Shengzu (Kangxi) and Shizong (Yongzheng). I think. Not to mention that Hongli pops up without explanation in an article that's headed Qianlong; this part I can fix, because it's just copy editing; but I'm not competent to select the correct and unconfusing name to use for each reference to each emperor in the text. Surely someone is, and could lay down the law here and in other articles. Dandrake 03:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

okay, this is basically what you do for these Emperor articles. The Emperor's personal name, or princely title (used interchangably, but the princely title in more formal occurences) is to be used before the reign begins. This is how Chinese writers usually do it. The Temple name, like Shengzu (Kangxi), is used seldom in writing for Qing Dynasty Emperors, and only occurs in formal written works, or in introduction. Colipon+(T) 04:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Later Years: NPOV?

The Later Years sections seems pretty POV, assigning much blame of the later decline of the Qing to Heshen. Kelvinc 01:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've translated and edited it for a more balanced range of factors for the demise of the Qing dynasty.Mineowyn (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Macartney Embassy not NPOV

I believe this comment makes the Chinese seem rather bad: "Insistent demands from Heshen and the Qing Court that the British Trade ambassadors should kneel and kowtow to the empty dragon throne worsened matters." The fact that Chinese required kowtow was part of their custom. Also, the rest of this paragraph makes it seem like the Chinese are offending the British. The British are the ones who came over to the territory of another so I believe there was no offense there and all information pointing to such an offense of Chinese to British should be rewritten in a more neutral stance.

The court expected the English Delegation to present England as a tribute nation to China, which was how it conducted all its foreign relations during the imperial era. This expectation was based on the conceit of China as the 'Middle Kingdom' and as superior to all foreign nations, which it deemed barbaric. This expectation worked with tribes in the central asian steppes, but for obvious reasons the British, the worlds greatest power at this point, took offense. No one cares whether you think it was justified or not, the fact is that when applied to European powers this is the result the tribute system had. 65.247.224.46 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that sinocentric views by Qianlongs court was one of the factors that contributed to the conflict and eventual collapse of the deal. But it takes 2 hands to clap, and the breakdown in the deal was also partly due to the British's strong and obstinate stance not to concede to foreign customs. As the proposition wanting/desiring something from the Qing court, their inflexibility, insensitivity and their impatience in requesting a rapid opening up of trade relations offended Eastern sensibilities. It is more of a clash in worldviews rather than it being either sides' fault. I have edited this for a more more neutral tone, however I think it still requires more sources to balance the opinions within this section. Mineowyn (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

R/S between Qianlong and Heshen

Shouldn't Heshen and the Qianlong emperors relationship be elaborated upon a little more? From my understanding, it was sexual in nature. 65.247.224.46 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling names

According to the English convention to spell Chinese names, only if the given names or a person contain more than one character can the pinyin of these characters be merged into one word. (e.g. Hu Jintao) This does not include the titles of emperors or empresses, or the title of reigns. Therefore, the proper title should be "Qian Long" instead of "Qianlong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.82.148 (talk)

Could you please provide a source for that claim? Reign titles are written as one word both in pinyin and Wade-Giles. See for instance this article. I see no reason what so ever why we should change this convention in Misplaced Pages. Please stop making these edits!--Niohe 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Names_of_emperors for more information. If you wish to change this convention, please discuss it there - do not make a point by unilaterally changing the spelling of Qing reign names.--Niohe 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do not take the form "Qian Long", at least you should put a dash between the two syllables like "Qian-long".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 108059 (talk • contribs) .

The dash is used in Wade-Giles, not pinyin. The romanization guidelines followed by Misplaced Pages reflect the consensus in English language (or for this matter, all) academia. The exact specifications are provided here: , which is identical to the specifications provided by 国务院汉语拼音方案审订委员会. It is not up to Misplaced Pages to create conventions. Hanyu Pinyin does not use dashes and spaces between a single idea or name.--Jiang 00:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

unknown consort

could u please tell me where u get the title honoured consort Ling who came from the Daigiya clan. If i'm right Qianlong had only 5 honoured consort and there was no honoured consort Ling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TYK1986 (talk • contribs)

consort ranks

As followed the ranks of qing emperors consorts: - empress "Huang Hou" - Imperial Noble Consort "Huang Gui Fei" - Noble Consort "Gui Fei" - Consort "Fei" - Imperial Concubine "Pin" - Worthy Lady "Gui Ren" - Female attendant "Chang Zai" - Female attendant of the second rank "Da Ying" - Servant maid "Xiu Niu" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TYK1986 (talk • contribs)

MacCartney Embassy

That section doesn't contain some of the more recent interpretations of the McCartney Embassy.

Roadrunner 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the section is quite accurate. It is true that some scholars have disputed the fact that the Qianlong Emperor insisted that Lord Macartney kneel in front of him, but the fact remains that Qing foreign trade policies remained the same, as stated in the emperors edict.--Niohe 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Malaysian "further reading"?

The following were posted as appropriate "further reading" ...?

• Maryam Salim, " The Laws of Kedah " , Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka, 2005.(Malaysia)
• Historical Reality of Nagara Kedah,
• Personal interview as primary data, Tuanku Nai Long Kasim, Last descendent of the Ayuthia Siamese Muslims King, Kedah 2005

There would seem to have been some kind of curious mistake here. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

The pictures in this article are fantastic; I've added a couple myself, but thanks to everyone else who contributed. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

About the images, I fail to see how the 2 images of farm and metal implements is of any significance in the article unless these implements were not invented till during the reign of Qianlong? I do not see any appropriate section in the article under which the images can be placed. The images are fantastic though. Mineowyn (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced and inaccurate

• I think the article has misused the word 'China'. Manchu dynasty was about 300 years, but China was used even in Tang era, until now. For example, we have 'One China, two system', or People's Republic of China, or Republic of China. So 'China' as a name is used extensively, I think to prevent confusion, all the 'China' in this article should be changed into Manchu, Qing, or Ch'ing, to be historically correct.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• He ordered the burning of 3000 books, why no mention at all? Quote:They began compilation in 1773 and completed it in 1782. The editors collected and annotated over 10,000 manuscripts from the imperial collections and other libraries, destroyed some 3,000 that were considered to be anti-Manchu, and selected 3,461 books for inclusion into the Siku quanshu.Unquoted.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Manchu military might came from 'Eight Flag', the article did not mention one single word on 'Eight Flag'.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• I am beginning to translating articles from 百度百科 and 互动百科.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Arilang does have a point, but it's hard to say how right we would be going to the opposite extreme.

The conventional Chinese view is that each succeeding dynasty is a dynasty of CHINA. That adds up to several millennia of CHINESE history. The problem is that this particular view introduces distortions into the interpretation of history. To give an example, the lay Chinese view is that the Yuan dynasty was a dynasty of CHINA. That leads many Chinese to declare that the Mongolian khanates were part of Chinese history, not the other way round. (See the article on the Yuan dynasty to see this kind of dispute in action). This results in the popular but rather ridiculous claim that "Chinese" armies (i.e. Mongolian armies) fought all the way to Europe.

Similarly, the very common and rather simplistic Chinese view is that the Qing was quite straightforwardly a dynasty of CHINA, and it is often coupled with the Ming ("Ming-Qing") in describing Chinese culture. For instance, it's often said that the Manchus adopted Chinese culture and governed the dynasty according to Confucian morality. This careless formulation glosses over the fact that for the Mongolians, for instance, the Qing were never "Confucian" rulers; they used Lamaism and appeals to the authority of Genghis Khan to keep the Mongols under control.

Thus the notion of the Qing dynasty as a dynasty of CHINESE HISTORY relegates the rest of the Manchu imperium to obscurity (or a footnote about how the Chinese dominated the fringe peoples). The fact is that these peoples were never regarded as "Chinese" by the Qing empire and were treated quite separately. To talk of Mongolians or Tibetans during the Qing dynasty as "Chinese" (which is implied by the treatment of the Qing as a CHINESE dynasty) is totally at odds with reality.

So should we change every occurrence of "Chinese" to "Manchu"? That is a difficult question. Inasmuchas the Qing regarded itself as a Chinese empire in the image of the Ming and preceding dynasties, there should be no objection to talking about "China" in the article. But to try and subsume the pre-modern multi-ethnic Qing empire under the straightjacket of "Chinese history" really does impose a distortion on the historical viewpoint that needs to be addressed. Editors need to be mindful of this when choosing "Chinese" or "Manchu" in editing the article.

(Later note: One example of this kind of thing can be seen at the article on Qing dynasty, where this sentence: Succeeding the throne at the age of 24, Qianlong personally led the military in campaigns near Xinjiang and Mongolia was rewritten by an editor as this: To consolidate the empire, Kangxi personally led China on a series of military campaigns against Tibet, the Dzungars, and later Russia. This changes the Qing emperor from the leader of Manchu armies (and we have to remember that this included Manchu, Mongol, and Chinese banners) to the leader of "China" in its conquest of Tibet, etc. This is a very subtle change, but it quite alters the historical perspective from one of a Manchu empire to a Chinese dynasty, with all the consequences that this has for modern-day China -- the Tibet-China issue, etc., etc., etc.)

Bathrobe (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) Manchus never consider themselves to be CHINESE. The Manchu ruling clan Aisin Joro, had never changed into Chinese surname, they always used Aisin Joro until the end of their rule.

(2)Manchukuo, is another evidence that the Manchus were planning to have their own kingdom. Manchus have never called themselves Chinese, why should we called them Chinese now?
(3) Dr. Sun Yetsen, founding father of modern China, the Republic of China, now still very much operating in Taiwan. Sun Yetsen's famous slogan during the Xinhai revolution was :'Lets get rid of the Manchu barbarians, and resurrect Chung Hua'. Dr.Sun Yet-sen called them 'barbarians', why should we call them Chinese now?
(4) Empress Dowager famous quote:' 天下乃吾爱新覺羅之天下' translated: This earth under heaven belongs to my family Aisin Joro. Empress Dowager, the famous dragon lady, never regard herself as Chinese, never did call herself Chinese, why should we call her Chinese now?Arilang1234 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was adviced by my user Teacher to rev. my edit, so I listen to him. But my view points remain the same.Arilang1234 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am putting my contribution here for other editors to read, to arrive at consensus and NPOV. Please help.

The Manchu rulers were using 'literary persecution' to shock and frighten any form of opposition. The accusation of individuals began with the absolute authority's twisted interpretation of the true meaning of the corresponding words, the necessary 'evidence' needed to achieve a successful persecution would come from further twisting of the words. The absolute authority would judge any single character (Han sentence is formed by joining of characters) or any single sentence's neutrality; if the authority had decided these words, or sentence were derogative or cynic towards the rulers, then persecution would begin.

Throughout the entire history of Manchu dynasty, the 'literary persecution' started with individual isolated cases in Xunji and Kanxi times, then evolved into a 'system'.There were 53 cases of literary persecutions during Qianlong's reign. Literary persecution(1)

1753. Qianlong had frequently toured the southern part of river(modern day Sujeou area), each time local folks suffered greatly because they had to fund all his expenses. One local official by the name of Lu Lusen, using a higher ranking minister's name, Sun Jiajin, wrote and send an article to Qianlong, pleading with him to stop the tour for the sake of the local suffering folks. The article was very sincere in the wording, so much so that the whole population get to love it. When Qianlong got to know the real author, Lu Lusen was put to death with the thousand small knife cut, his two sons were beheaded, and more than a thousand people were implicated and thrown into jail.

Literary persecution(2)

1755. One high ranking scholar Hu zhongjou wrote a poem. The final character is 清, Qing, the official name of Manchu dynasty. The character that in front of Qing is 浊, meaning dirty, muddy. Qianlong then order him to be beheaded, because he dared to put 'dirty' in front of Qing, showing disrespect towards the Manchu dynasty. Literary persecution(3)

1778. A deceased Jiang Xu poet by the name of Sujun, had left a piece of poem, written many years ago. Qianlong decided that the poem was derogatory towards the Manchus, he then ordered that Sujun's coffin to be unearthed, his corpse to be mutilated, all his children and grandchildren and the local officials to be beheaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Arilang1234 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234, thank you for your contributions. Please tell us what are the references for this information? We need the names of the books or websites where you got these ideas. They need footnotes with all the information (title, author, date, etc.) Please put copies of those footnotes here on the talk page. I can help you, but you must tell us the title, author, date, etc.

I already told you that this is probably not NPOV: "absolute authority's twisted interpretation" I think it would be best to change it. If you want to argue that it is NPOV, you would have to show that it's told like that in several sources, and argue that there are no sources that tell it a different way, and that there is no way to write it with a more impartial tone. You would need to know a lot about sources, not only have one source. If you change it to sound more impartial (neutral), then you may be able to have just one source. In other words: when I say something is probably not NPOV, you should probably change it. I suggest deleting this part: "The accusation of individuals began with the absolute authority's twisted interpretation of the true meaning of the corresponding words, the necessary 'evidence' needed to achieve a successful persecution would come from further twisting of the words."

You put the word "system" in quotation marks. Where is it a quote from? You need a reference.

I don't know anything about this topic, so I don't know whether your edits are good or not.

May I edit your suggested text here on the talk page? I would change small things like punctuation and grammar. Have a nice day! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234, you said "I am beginning to translating articles from 百度百科 and 互动百科." Translating articles may be very useful! Thank you! But on English Misplaced Pages talk pages, please use English. Where are you translating from? Please give the names in English or in pinyin or Wade-Giles so we can pronounce them. Are those encyclopedias? Are they copies of Misplaced Pages? Are they under GFDL licenses? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@Coppertwig, let me explain.百度(Baidu, as in www.Baidu.com.cn) is the largest Chinese internet company, its search engine function rivals that of google, may be even bigger.百科(pronounce Baike) means Encyclopedia. So put 2 together, 百度百科(http://baike.baidu.com/), means Encyclopedia of Baibu.com, which has 1.3 million article, much bigger than zh.wikipedia, which has only 300,000 articles.

Likewise, 互动百科 is another Chinese on-line 💕 http://www.hudong.com/ 互动(pronounce hudong, hence hudong.com) boasting 2.8 millions articles, not quite as big as en.wikipedia..hudong.com is using the same software as any other wikipedia(wikipedia software is an open source), but I am not sure about GFDL, either on hudong.com, or baike.baidu.comArilang1234 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. I know 百度百科 ("Baidu encyclopaedia"). This is an online encyclopaedia on Baidu, the Chinese equivalent of Google. It's probably not a good idea to transfer or translate information from Baidu to Misplaced Pages. It's better to have written paper sources. The information that Arirang is putting up is based in fact. The entire Qing encyclopaedic enterprise was one part of a project to mark out its realms not just in the territorial sphere but in the cultural sphere. Pamela Crossley deals with this in A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. The suppression of works not favourable to the Manchus/Qing was one part of this project. The rewriting of biographies and the development of an appropriate lineage for the Manchus was another. Most of this was consciously done. As an alien people, the Manchus were also at great pains to prove that they were not a bunch of barbarians and were entitled to the Mandate of Heaven. There was a celebrated case over the barbarian status of the Manchus, in which Qianlong specifically overturned the response of Yongzheng to literati's slurs on the background of the Qing. (See Treason_by_the_Book).

Bathrobe (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks user Bathrobe. 'Treason by the book' is only one drop of water, compare to the numerous evil deeds the barbaric Manchus did to chinese Han, as well as other ethnic people. Regarding paper source, one book(there are not many other books, which escaped the Manchu's fire) can be used:楊州十日(The Ten Days of Yangjou). The Manchu did burn all the printed copies of this book, which carry the eye witness account of the Manchu's ten days of mass murder of Chinese Han population of Yangjou city, one of the most busy city of that time. Lucky that one single copy of it was brought over to Japan by somebody, and this single copy is able to tell the world the true picture of those barbarians.Arilang1234 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'Queue order' was one rule the Manchus imposed on Han ethnic, in Chinese is called 剃发令(the order to shave the hair). "Hundreds of thousands were killed"? I doubt it very much. It is more like in the millions. 嘉定三屠(the three mass killings at Jiadin) was the direct result of this 'queue order'. Just in Jiadin alone more than 2 or 3 hundred thousands were butchered, what about other cities? 楊州十日(Ten days of mass killings at Yangjou), how many were murdered? The Manchu barbarians murdered millions upon millions of Han(漢族), as well as other ethnic. Why not a single word is mentioned in this article? When Dr.Sun Yetsen started the revolution to overthrow the barbaric Manchu dynasty, the first thing he did was cutting off his pigtail. Doesn't it say something? My view is, this article is not a class B. It has got too many errors, and biasArilang1234 (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the past atrocities of the Manchus tend to be glossed over. However, despite the sense of outrage that these tend to incite in people, I think that the article should be written from a sober point of view. Using words like "evil deeds" and "barbaric Manchus" is highly emotive and POV. The facts should be left to speak for themselves, without the use of emotional language.

Currently the main objection to your point of view is that of the Chinese themselves. Sun Yatsen may have advocated expelling the Manchus, but there was a very quick turnaround when it was realised that the Chinese would like to keep the territories of the Qing for themselves. So the hated Manchus were painted as fully assimilated to Chinese culture and became members of the Zhonghua Minzu. History is then "recalibrated" to make the Manchus seem like good guys who were always members of the family.

I don't think there is any point in stirring up anti-Manchu sentiment at this time. The Manchus are effectively gone. All that is left is their fully-assimilated descendants who have abandoned any pretence at ruling the empire.

You might be interested in this article

Bathrobe (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again user Bathrobe. I agree with you that Manchu had gone forever, but that does not mean we will just sit down and swallow whatever is handed to us on a plate. When I can see that the content is biased, the historical facts are being twisted, no matter how nice is the packaging, but the goods inside is rotten. Very much like the current poison milk scandal. The poison had already enter the food chain, so whatever products, and whatever brands, the poison is there. The only way to prevent being poisoned, is to weed off the poison, bit by bit. There is no alternative. My comparison may be a bit off target, but I hope you can see my point.Arilang1234 (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another observation. If one look at Song Dynasty, 'China' pop up sparingly, not very much. 'Chinese government' hardly turn up at all, there are Song dynasty government, Song officials, etc. But on any Manchu pages, one will see endless mention of China, China government, Chinese government, Chinese officials, as if there was a real Chinese Dynasty, Chinese Empire. So according to these editors, Song Dynasty is not as much 'Chinese' as Manchu dynasty, we might start to kick Ming, Tang, or Song people out of the Chinese family, and start to adopt Manchu surnames, follow Manchu customs, and call ourselves Manchu Chinese.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have a very anti-Manchu point of view. I think you should step back and consider some of the implications of this point of view.

1. If the Manchus are not Chinese, China has no claim to Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Taiwan, or Manchuria. China's claims to all these places is based on the borders of the Qing empire. If you want to base Chinese territorial claims on a native Chinese empire, you have to go back to the Ming.

2. Since the Manchus were so dastardly, the Chinese will have to stop hating the Japanese so much and start hating the Manchus. There is definitely an imbalance in the scale of hatred. The rape of Yanzhou was probably just as bad as the rape of Nanking. The reasons that one is played down while the other is played up include a) greater recency of Nanjing b) Japanese are foreigners, Manchus are "one of us", so we don't want to make too much of it.

Neither of these outcomes is terribly palatable to Chinese people.

I would suggest that campaigns to make one or another ethnic group look evil should not be the motivation of editing on Misplaced Pages. You are right that the Manchus were quite ruthless in their invasion of China, but inspiring Han hatred of the Manchus is to focus too closely on one aspect of history. There are many cases of atrocities in history. While the atrocities should not be denied or played down, it's equally important that the poison shouldn't be allowed to linger on from generation to generation. This only leads to a blood feud mentality and situations like ethnic cleansing (see Yugoslavia). It doesn't lead to any greater appreciation of the facts, merely a greater sense of outrage and the possibility that atrocities will be repeated in revenge.

Incidentally, the death toll of the Manchu invasion is mentioned here: Death_toll#Wars_and_armed_conflicts.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

--snip--campaigns to make one or another ethnic group look evil should not be the motivation of editing on Misplaced Pages.--snip--

(1)I am not on a crusade of turning Manchus into evil people, nor am I advocating hatred or revenge among anyone. What is done in the past, is done, no one can reverse the history, and no one can twist history to fit the shoes of politic. What Manchus have done to others, be it recorded into the book of history. If Misplaced Pages refuse to do so, fine, there are other Encyclopedias around, be it Chinese, or English, or other languages. (2) Manchus murdered other Han ethnic in the 16, 17 century, so be it. Han ethnic in the past, also had blood in their hand, there is no need to shy away. During 漢武帝(Han Wu Emperor), how many 匈奴(I do not know the correct English translation) did he killed? Nobody ever counted. Han Wu Emperor drove them all the way towards Siberia, and this tribe was never heard of again. What to do, gone is gone. I think you are interested in Chinese history, may I remind you of a famous eunuch historian 司馬迁? To all the Han Chinese, he is revered as 太史公, the grand old man of HISTORY. Under his pen, the ancient Chinese history was written down as factual as possible. Han Wu Emperor(yes, the same guy) castrated him, try to force him to change his writing, but to no avail. Shouldn't we all learn from 'The grand old man of History'?Arilang1234 (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Beside mass murder, Manchu took to the burning of books, in the hundred of thousands. Now you and me, plus countless other wikipedians on the internet, we are here to advocate both the preservation and spreading of knowledge for the future generation, you and me happen to find out what had the Manchus done to the propagating of knowledge, how many books they have burned, yet we just keep quiet and take no action, and mind you, the 'action' involved is just the clicking of an old keyboard. Now you tell me, is it hypocrite, or not?Arilang1234 (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles